zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Zeldapedia:Featured articles/Archive 5
Mirror of Twilight }} Call me crazy, but I dig this article. Looks good, images nicely accompany the reading, and is detailed and descriptive. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 02:15, March 20, 2010 (UTC) Support # It's a piece of class. Only needs to be De-HoT87-ified a bit. --AuronKaizer ''' 02:20, March 20, 2010 (UTC) # Great article. Although there is a lot of text, the images that accompany it seem to fit that you just don't care... - McGillivray227 02:26, March 20, 2010 (UTC) # Looks nice Oni Link 19:59, March 20, 2010 (UTC) # The theory section is a bit long, but it's good overall. Jedimasterlink (talk) 21:50, March 20, 2010 (UTC) # Insert generally undescriptive praise here that doesn't really matter because it's obvious that I'm supporting ''Xykeb'' ''Yvolix'' '' '' 00:47, March 21, 2010 (UTC) # I dig it too.-- C2' / 20:26, March 22, 2010 (UTC) # Looks great! The 22:45, April 18, 2010 (UTC) # Not bad, I think this is a good quality page. Oppose Comments Psst...you're crazy Baltro! --Auron'Kaizer ' 01:58, April 30, 2010 (UTC) Deku Mask }} Exhaustive, properly-formatted and well-illustrated article covering both the mask and its transformational effects and powers. I rest my case. --Auron'Kaizer ' 01:58, April 30, 2010 (UTC) Support # Yes, you have AK... yes, you have... - McGillivray227 02:01, April 30, 2010 (UTC) # It's a good article. Not as long as others, but very well written, and covers everything there is to say about the Deku Mask as completely as an article can, with plenty of images.'-- C2' / 02:05, April 30, 2010 (UTC) # Looks good to me. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 02:09, April 30, 2010 (UTC) # 'Xykeb' 'Yvolix' ''' '' 02:19, April 30, 2010 (UTC) # I was sold the moment I saw the gallery. —[[User:Baltro|'''Baltro]] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 22:59, April 30, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Comments Tingle }} Don't know what else could be done with this extensive page ( except for maybe making some of the final pictures transparent). If anyone votes against this simply because they do not like Tingle, I will seriously be annoyed. He is one of the main characters of the series.--EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 02:09, April 30, 2010 (UTC) Support # My mind says no no, but my editing spirit says yes yes! --AuronKaizer ''' 02:10, April 30, 2010 (UTC) # Holy shit...... and obviously I support.....-- C2' / 02:16, April 30, 2010 (UTC) # In reciprocality, if anybody supports this simply because they do like Tingle, I will seriously annoyed. Oh wait, nobody likes Tingle. Silly me. 'Xykeb' 'Yvolix' ''' '' 02:19, April 30, 2010 (UTC) # Only because I like Tingle. Haha, just kidding! I'm so clever. ¬_¬ -- Haru Mclean Namikaze Kana: ナミカゼ ハ ル マクリーン, Romaji: Namikaze Haru Makurīn # Even though it is Tingle, it is still quite an amazing looking article. - McGillivray227 19:18, April 30, 2010 (UTC) # I give this support, although I have to mention I'd definitely like to see more than just one-sentence sections in the non-canon header (after all, they are his games). —[[User:Baltro|'''Baltro]] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 22:59, April 30, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Comments Hey Baltro, they are more discriptive than they were before, but unless/untill someone plays them, we cannot elaborate on them much more than how they currently are.'-- C2' / 00:25, May 1, 2010 (UTC) :Then I guess we need someone to buy it or rent it, or we need to find another source that has more information on the subjects. Regardless, it's a minor detail, and I still support. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 00:36, May 1, 2010 (UTC) Master Sword }} An iconic part of the series, the article itself isn't half-bad. Nice imagery, decent sourcing from the quotes, and all-around pleasant. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 02:59, May 10, 2010 (UTC) Support # Something doesn't feel like it's quite "there" just yet. It needs more work. But still, from a technical point of view and mine as a reader, it's good. --AuronKaizer ' 03:02, May 10, 2010 (UTC) # All the one above. The 00:21, May 11, 2010 (UTC) # It's good. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 04:18, May 14, 2010 (UTC) # It's definitely a strong article. Jedimasterlink (talk) 22:16, May 15, 2010 (UTC) # Sweet... - McGillivray227 02:14, May 25, 2010 (UTC) # Nice. --'DekuStick '' '' Oppose Comments Kokiri }} Exhaustive, well-illustrated race article with lots of juicy tidbits of info. Aye? --AuronKaizer ' 02:12, May 25, 2010 (UTC) Support # Aye Aye, El Capitano! - McGillivray227 02:14, May 25, 2010 (UTC) # That extensive overhauling you just did makes it much nicer than before. Yes. --'DekuStick '' '' # This page has had, what, ten editors in the last 24 hours? Anyways, now it's perfect in every aspect (we shall hope). Dawn Of A New Day (is cool) # Yeah it be a cool article. J-man Zelda Fan (talk) 03:37, May 25, 2010 (UTC) 03:37, May 25, 2010 (UTC) # This works. It has all the qualities that a FA should have. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 05:10, May 25, 2010 (UTC) # I, the great Mido, will never accept this nomination as one of them! Xykeb Yvolix '' '' 05:16, May 25, 2010 (UTC) # I like it, it's well written and to the point.--ShutUpNavi (talk) 17:01, May 25, 2010 (UTC) # Aye. Jedimasterlink (talk) 02:58, May 26, 2010 (UTC) # Sure. Super duh... 03:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC) # One more day. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 22:22, May 31, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Comments Outset Island }} Support Oppose # This article looks differently than most of our other articles. The 03:28, June 29, 2010 (UTC) # Yes, the markup needs to adhere to our standards like. --AuronKaizer ''' 22:21, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # Not only do I agree with TM and AK, but I have to say, this needs to be cleaned up. So I'll give you a day or so to remove this because I'm adding the clean-up tag.-- C2' / 21:12, July 5, 2010 (UTC) # Exactly what CC said. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 17:19, July 20, 2010 (UTC) Comments Navi }} Everyone knows who this is and after looking it over, I see no conventional way that this could be expanded any further. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 22:26, July 4, 2010 (UTC) Support # Hey! Listen! Watch out! --Auron'Kaizer ' 22:43, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # Could have some more images. Not a major gripe really, just a suggestion for you to add some before it is likely featured.'-- C2' / 21:09, July 5, 2010 (UTC) # I love it! Fix it up like they said and its all good! Cybrwulf(talk)02:28, July 6, 2010 (UTC) # One or two more images would be nice, but it's well written and organized. Jedimasterlink (talk) 02:47, July 17, 2010 (UTC) # It seems complete and organized to MEep Meep Meep (talk) 12:56, July 20, 2010 (UTC) # I saw why not. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 17:23, July 20, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Comments Sheik }} Support # Natch. --Auron'Kaizer ' 22:21, July 4, 2010 (UTC) # Das good. Only good one you've bothered to trouble us with.'-- C2' / 21:10, July 5, 2010 (UTC) # Interesting that this hasn't been featured yet. Jedimasterlink (talk) 16:55, July 20, 2010 (UTC) # It's of good length for a relatively minor character that garnered so much attention throughout the series giving him (or her? perfect controversy) a name. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 17:21, July 20, 2010 (UTC) # Seems like a good FA to me. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:08, July 27, 2010 (UTC) # I like this one.--Link in Termina (talk) 18:34, July 29, 2010 (UTC) # I've looked it over, and I think I will support, after all. The 21:50, July 29, 2010 (UTC) # It looks good to me! --Wind Mage 00:48, August 4, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Comments I'm not sure know. Its size may be too short. The 02:37, July 6, 2010 (UTC) :Sheik article too short? The Navi one is the same length if not shorter. ''J-man Zelda Fan 02:46, July 6, 2010 (UTC) :: Then I'm not sure on that one, either. I don't know. I guess I'll think it over. The 02:48, July 6, 2010 (UTC) ::: You have to think relatively. Not every article can be a monster on par with Link, Happy Mask Salesman, etc. The worth of an article should be measured in how well it presents its subjects, not the number of letters devoted to doing just that. --AuronKaizer ' 02:50, July 6, 2010 (UTC) :::: You know what, AK? You're completely right. The Sheik article looks like a pretty good article, but it does have a lot of theory tags and non-canon tags. The 02:57, July 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::: He's saying that length doesn't translate into completeness. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 02:58, July 6, 2010 (UTC) :@The Midna: Well...theory and non-canon do not necessarily make it an article not worthy to be featured, right? I mean what's so bad about them. ''J-man '''Zelda Fan 03:00, July 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::::@Joe: I know. @AK: It does well, but I'll still have to think it over a little more; but now, knowing this better, I'm more open to supporting. The 03:05, July 6, 2010 (UTC) Snowhead Temple }} Support Oppose # The history section delves into speculation stated as fact, reminiscent of that one guy. Suffice it to say, highlight the last word of the last paragraph of that section and you have your answer. --AuronKaizer ' 14:32, June 20, 2010 (UTC) # Not good enough to be featured in any way, shape, or form. -'Isdrak ''' 01:33, June 21, 2010 (UTC) # Nope. Not nearly as high-quality for the standards. And needs more images, more information, and some clean up.-- C2' / 02:03, June 21, 2010 (UTC) # What they said. --'DekuStick' ''' '' 03:10, June 29, 2010 (UTC) # It really makes you question Wind Temple. —[[User:Baltro|'''Baltro]] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 17:17, July 20, 2010 (UTC) # It looks like a typical dungeon page; if a dungeon page, it should be an especially good one. The 21:50, July 29, 2010 (UTC) Comments You have confused me. What is the word? --Funlover63 (talk) 01:27, June 21, 2010 (UTC)Funlover63 :Ignore this guy, he's a moron apparently. --AuronKaizer ' 20:08, June 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Hate to ruin your fun, but Funlover63, you can't delete what someone has written on this wiki. Like what they have personally said to you. Nobody has the right to remove the actual code of what someone has said that is not on the mainspace, unless the page is deleted. While you may have taken offense to what AK said, you may NOT remove what he said. You can change you comment, but not alter/remove his without his consent. '-- C2 / 02:02, June 21, 2010 (UTC) Ha, I never have any fun here. Funlover63 (talk) 04:58, July 9, 2010 (UTC)Funlover63 Lake Hylia }} Support # I meant to suggest this at one stage myself. it has a lot of info in each section what more could you want? Oni Link 11:11, June 21, 2010 (UTC) # The Ocarina of Time section is lacking a little but other than that it's pretty well worded and informative --Hydropanda (talk) 11:56, August 11, 2010 (UTC) Oppose # There just isn't enough in each section, especially the main ones like Ocarina of Time. The 20:30, June 21, 2010 (UTC) # I agree with TM. Plenty of images, and it does have content, but the LoZ, ALttP, and OoT need expansion. (P.S. The LoZ, ALttP sections only need a little bit more, but the OoT section is deffinately underwhelming for how important it was.)'-- C2' / 14:14, June 22, 2010 (UTC) # Needs an Expansion Pack or two. --AuronKaizer ''' 14:25, June 22, 2010 (UTC) # It's been said already. ''Xykeb'' ''Yvolix'' '' '' 21:12, June 22, 2010 (UTC) # I don't have anything to say about this that has not already been said by someone else. -'Isdrak ' 23:20, June 22, 2010 (UTC) # More info needed... --'''DekuStick '' '' 03:10, June 29, 2010 (UTC) # They're just small paragraphs, there isn't any notable well-written prose or anything that differentiates it from other articles. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 17:19, July 20, 2010 (UTC) Earth Temple }} I suggest it because Wind Temple had it, and they are similar in length. Support Oppose # The "just because one got it, the other one should too" argument is not a great way to go about anything. That was promoted way before we even had a decent set of rules and markup. It doesn't cohere with our current style and would never pass a FA nomination today, and its status is more or less "revoked." It goes without saying this applies to the nominee here as well. Needs plenty of subtle work here and there. Don't be easily dazzled by an article's length in letters, because sometimes, less is more. --AuronKaizer ' 16:42, July 30, 2010 (UTC) # I was surprised Wind Temple even got featured anyway...both this and that are pretty typical articles that happen to have more words than most dungeon pages. Jedimasterlink (talk) 02:28, July 31, 2010 (UTC) # Nope. That isn't a good reason to make it featured.--Black I'm not doing anything suspicious! Really! # You should sign your suggestion, and Wind Temple should have its status removed anyways. I see no reason this should be featured. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro]] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 23:53, September 20, 2010 (UTC) Comments Lost Woods }} It's all decent writing, no glaring errors or misplaced information. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 23:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC) Support # I like it... Sounds good! 23:21, September 22, 2010 (UTC) # Sigh, another example of the failure of the non-split article system, but oh well... --AuronKaizer ' 23:24, September 22, 2010 (UTC) # Seems fine to me. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 18:00, October 2, 2010 (UTC) # Just edited it, looks pretty good. ThogTheCaveman # Quite worthy of this title. AmazingLink 23:26, October 15, 2010 (UTC) #It looks like it should be featured. [[User:Black Dragon Laguz|'Black]] [[User talk:Black Dragon Laguz|'Dragon']] 13:12, October 19, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Comments List of locations in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess }} I think the time is finally right to feature this article. In previous scenarios, it was missing information under certain subheadings, but now I doubt there is any possible information missing from it. Just like before, the bounty of images further its visual appeal. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 19:49, November 13, 2010 (UTC) Support # You think a time when an imminent move may occur is the "right time"? Oy vay. Anyways, there's nothing wrong with the article, aside from perhaps a little creative drought. It might be a good template for how to do the rest of these location pages. --AuronKaizer ' 20:22, November 13, 2010 (UTC) # Done up in a really great way, the pictures make it pretty, and well, dayum it looks good. --'ϐαςς ᴶαϟϟι ''' 21:10, November 13, 2010 (UTC) # I really don't like this page. I don't like how it looks and I don't like how its inconsistent with the other lists (which I prefer more). But with that being said, you've been working on this for so long and have tried putting it up for FA before (when it was incomplete). So now that it is done, what is it to me if we feature it for a month? It does have a lot of information on it after all. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 16:26, November 24, 2010 (UTC) # Maybe not well-written, but it is not poorly written in the least. Also, the shear amount of content and truck load of images make this a very good article.-- C2' / 02:49, November 29, 2010 (UTC) # While I don't like how this page is radically different from all the other location lists, I think this is a good template for how we could rework those pages to make them more informative and visually appealing. Jedimasterlink (talk) 00:03, November 30, 2010 (UTC) # Good article.Rusl 33 Oppose Comments Rito }} ShutUpNavi has been working on this for a very long time in hopes of it becoming a FA. I just read over it and did not find anything that jumped out at me to indicate something wrong. The article seems abundant with information and deals with a relatively important and interesting subject. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 16:34, November 24, 2010 (UTC) Support # It's long enough, illustrated, well-written. No objections. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 21:54, November 28, 2010 (UTC) # Meets the criteria and thensome. Good article in general.'-- C2' / 02:50, November 29, 2010 (UTC) # Sufficient info, well-written, looks good, generally interesting. Works for me. Jedimasterlink (talk) 00:03, November 30, 2010 (UTC) # It is really good, and the Rito are really awesome. User:The Tardis # Another good article.Rusl 33 # Meep. this is a good one Meep Meep (talk) 15:58, December 16, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Comments General Onox }} I noticed the other day that this was a relatively good article. It seems complete and covers a big topic in the series. Also, almost all of the articles currently in the queue are for things related to either OoT, MM, TWW or TP. So here's to change. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 19:55, December 17, 2010 (UTC) Support # Definitely one of the better articles on this site. Jedimasterlink (talk) 23:45, December 18, 2010 (UTC) # Good article.Rusl 33 # For a villain with such minor impact on the story this is a top notch article. There really isn't much else that could be added to it. Oni Link 13:32, December 29, 2010 (UTC) # Agree --Vussen 23:14, January 2, 2011 (UTC) # It's, erm, great. --Auron'Kaizer ' 07:52, January 17, 2011 (UTC) Oppose Comments Skull Kid (character) }} The article is detailed and there's enough text. I don't think there is more to say about him in the article. He is one of the main characters in Majora's Mask, so why not... --Vussen 16:04, January 3, 2011 (UTC) Support # Obviously. --Auron'Kaizer ' 07:51, January 17, 2011 (UTC) # Whether this will actually go through or not, I don't know, but I changed my mind on it. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 21:56, January 18, 2011 (UTC) # The article is much better now than when it was first suggested. Nice work, AK. Jedimasterlink (talk) 06:51, January 21, 2011 (UTC) # I think this is a good page, definitely worthy of Featured status. Also, I like the Skull Kid as a character, with his seriously messed-up mischeiviousness. Congrats for picking a good page to feature. LINk'11 # Go For It Kid™! -'Minish Link' 14:44, April 29, 2011 (UTC) Oppose Comments I'm rather neutral on this. While the pages is good and it deals with a strong topic, the page itself is a little strange for Zeldapedia. Because the whole OoT/MM thing makes it a little odd. Even though its as close to definite as we are going to get, it is still technically a theory. But splitting them would be even odder in my opinion. So I'm just neutral on this. Don't mind which way it goes. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 18:47, January 3, 2011 (UTC) :Joe pretty much sums up exactly how I feel on the subject Oni Link 20:00, January 3, 2011 (UTC) Indeed, this page requires some work to fit the markup. Way too many quote inclusions in the main text (which is a real pet peeve of mine, and not entirely encyclopedic neither) and it lacks a bit of focus. I'm going to see what I can do with it, and come back with a clear oppose or support vote later. --AuronKaizer ' 02:02, January 4, 2011 (UTC) Postman }} I was reading through this page one day and was actually surprised to discover that this page wasn't a featured article. I really think it deserves to be nominated. It is a good page. The Postman is a recurring character in a lot of Zelda games. Think about the poor postman! -- Vussen Support #The postman is a funny looking dude and he is a great character!--Loves The Legend Of Zelda! Especially The Wind Waker! 09:48, March 12, 2011 (UTC) #Hey, the Postman is one of my favorite characters in any of the Zelda games I own (especially Twilight Princess- "Da-dada-da!" Hah!), and I'm also surprised that he's not a featured article. He gets practically no breaks: he deserves this. --MachTornado Know my power… 16:02, October 12, 2011 (UTC) #The Postman is an important recurring character, and he's pretty awesome. User:ShyGuyFan 10:43 AM, November 1, 2011 #It's not bad. I think it could work as a FA. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 18:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC) #Yeah, I dig it. '-- C2 / 00:57, November 10, 2011 (UTC) Oppose Comments Just a heads up, in the future you probably shouldn't suggest a FA while you already have another suggestion pending. Although it doesn't really say anything about this in the rules, it probably should. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 21:54, January 18, 2011 (UTC) :I whole-heartedly agree with Joe, and will abstain from voting until a sentence is passed on the other pending suggestion. --AuronKaizer ''' 06:09, January 19, 2011 (UTC) ::I agree with Joe and AK. You should wait longer between suggestions. Actually, now that I think about it, there should be a limit to how many you suggest within a given amount of time. What do you think, AK? LINk11 ReDead }} I think that this page is definitely good enough for the home page, and I also think that ReDeads are really cool and awesomely macabre. I had a friend who refused to even try any "The Legend of Zelda" games because he thought they were childish and didn't have enough action in them, and then he saw me fight a ReDead in Wind Waker and immediately changed his mind. (He wasn't quite convinced to start playing until he saw me defeat Ganondorf in the same game, but I digress.) LINk11 (sorry forgot to sign) Support Oppose #After the discussion of how it's un(kn)own what they are doing. You'd think that an editor that users the wiki relatively consistently, they wouldn't add them. Oh and not to mention you had actually commented on this and you even agreed. So no. --'''BassJapas 14:25, April 29, 2011 (UTC) #Umm, gotta agree with Jazzi.'-- C2' / 00:57, November 10, 2011 (UTC) Comments :huh? commented on what and agreed? I don't recall commenting on ReDeads at any point in time except during my suggestion. LINk11 ::She linked to the comment on the above suggestion, wherein you agreed that users should only be allowed to suggest one featured article at a time. I have absolutely no idea why that's relevant, however, since this is clearly your first suggestion. The first link is just pointing out that you added information that was discussed on the talk page and was determined to be, well, indeterminable. (By the way, I don't have an opinion on this article at this time.) Jedimasterlink (talk) 19:44, May 5, 2011 (UTC) :::I had linked to the comment in the above section because I thought it meant wait till one was up. That was my mistake. But considering that it had been removed many times, and you having added it, it all just totals up to the oppose. --'''BassJapas 20:26, May 5, 2011 (UTC) Lanayru }} I think that this article is definitely good enough to be featured. He is my favorite light spirit(yes I'm biased - so shoot me) and the article is very well made. Also, Lanayru has a large part in the story, as he gives Link a large amount of information and unintentionally almost kills Midna. Support Oppose # sigh # ^This link is applicable this time. Jedimasterlink (talk) 16:33, June 14, 2011 (UTC) # Chewchewchew, chewchewchewchewchew --AuronKaizer ''' 16:38, June 14, 2011 (UTC) #See above.-- C2' / 00:57, November 10, 2011 (UTC) Comments Oh crap! sorry about that. Been doing a lot lately(moving temporarily to an apartment 5 states away, staying at a resort for a week, theme park) and wasn't thinking. won't happen again. Zant's Faithful 'Servant Ghost Ship }} I think that the article on the ghost ship is good and the ghost ship is cool and mysterious. User:Coolkat100 Support Oppose # ...you didn't even give good reasons. --[[User:Jäzzi|''Bass]][[User talk:Jäzzi|Japas]] 21:39, July 3, 2011 (UTC) # It is a good disambiguation page, make no mistake, but... dude. --Auron'Kaizer ' 22:37, July 3, 2011 (UTC) # I think vote 2 says it all. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 22:54, July 3, 2011 (UTC) # Agree with AK.'-- C2' / 00:57, November 10, 2011 (UTC) Comments Ganon }} When I was browsing through the previous featured articles and I saw that Ganon wasn't there, so I went to his page to make sure and I found that he wasn't featured. So I think that we should make him go on the main page I mean seriously why should Ganondorf get to be a featured article when his alternate form can't besides he is so awesome in all of the games of the zelda series that he appears on, and one more thing he's just plain awesome.And he is really important to the story lines i mean think about it in the first zelda game only ganon was there there was no ganondorf so without him zelda might have not been as good.cuz in orcarina of time who would have been the final boss? User:LoZSuperFan1 Support #Seeing as how he is one of the 3 main characters in Zelda, it's suprising that he hasn't been featured yet User:ShyGuyFan 10:50 AM, November 1, 2011 #Uhhh.... yeah, I'll buy it.'-- C2' / 00:57, November 10, 2011 (UTC) #Out of respect (or something) I won't comment any further on this terrible description and flawed reasoning you've provided. Aside from that, it's good enough I guess. --Auron'Kaizer ' 01:10, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # i guess because of his status as the final boss in the most games.User:Dinoman21 # We are going to need more of these and this looks fine to me. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 15:46, April 12, 2012 (UTC) Oppose Comments Four Sword }} This is a pretty good article and the topic is from game's that don't get much attention in the FA realm. It is also important to the games it is found in. So read over it and see. I thought it was good enough for this when I was editing it a moment ago. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 20:23, November 10, 2011 (UTC) Support # Well I really liked the idea of multiple Links all as team players...and the sword looks cool. Oppose # It's erh... Not that it's bad or the article is bad, but just something about it seems wrong. – Jazzi (talk) 11:37, July 16, 2012 (UTC) Comments I'm a bit tentative here. It's got non-standard sections and the game sections could use major condensing as they are almost as long as the game page plot summaries as of right now. --Auron'Kaizer ' 01:10, November 14, 2011 (UTC) The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword }} This is a very long article and is about a good game for the Wii. Has a plot and pictures, gallery and videos. ' Yugimuto1 ''' Talk edits 13:48, June 16, 2012 (UTC) Support # Seems good to me. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 19:21, June 16, 2012 (UTC) # Why not? AWWW YEA! (talk) 09:15, June 30, 2012 (UTC) # I'm in for it. It was an amazing game. --Amythistfire (talk) 01:12, July 4, 2012 (UTC) # The article is good. Jazzi 14:54, July 4, 2012 (UTC) # It's a nice article, and it should be featured since most games were already featured.--Kingkillerbee (talk) 20:30, July 20, 2012 (UTC) Oppose Comments